TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an agreement to sell, coupled with partial payment, created any interest, title, or charge in the proposed purchaser so as to support the attachment under the benami law; (ii) Whether the property and transaction in question satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Issue (i): Whether an agreement to sell, coupled with partial payment, created any interest, title, or charge in the proposed purchaser so as to support the attachment under the benami law.
Analysis: A contract for sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on immovable property. Title in property of the relevant value passes only by a registered instrument, and mere part payment under an agreement to sell does not divest ownership from the seller. The Tribunal applied this settled position to hold that the proposed purchaser had not acquired ownership or a proprietary interest capable of sustaining the impugned attachment.
Conclusion: The answer is in the negative. The agreement to sell did not create any interest, title, or charge in the proposed purchaser.
Issue (ii): Whether the property and transaction in question satisfied the ingredients of a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the property had not been transferred to or held by the alleged benamidar, and that the record did not establish that the beneficial owner had provided the funds for the transaction in the manner required to attract the statutory definition. On the material before it, the Tribunal held that the statutory ingredients of benami ownership were not proved, and the provisional attachment and its confirmation could not stand.
Conclusion: The answer is in the negative. The transaction and property were held not to be benami, and the confirmation of attachment was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned attachment order was annulled because the transaction was not established to be benami and the agreement to sell did not confer any proprietary interest on the proposed purchaser.
Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property, and a transaction can be treated as benami only when the statutory ingredients, including holding of property in another name with the requisite beneficial funding, are proved on the record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
